issue 1 - september 2011

The Threat to Academic Autonomy: The Social Role of the Sociological and Literary Canons
Bridget Fowler
BRIDGET FOWLER IS AN EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. SHE SPECIALISES IN SOCIAL THEORY, MARXISTFEMINISM AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF CULTURE. A LONG-TERM INTEREST HAS BEEN THE THOUGHT OF PIERRE BOURDIEU, WHOSE IDEAS SHE HAS TAKEN UP IN VARIOUS BOOKS: THE ALIENATED READER (HARVESTER WHEATSHEAF, 1991); PIERRE BOURDIEU AND CULTURAL THEORY: CRITICAL INVESTIGATIONS (SAGE, 1997), AND (EDITED), READING BOURDIEU ON SOCIETY AND CULTURE (BLACKWELL, 2000). SHE IS AT PRESENT APPLYING BOURDIEUSIAN THEORY TO THE STUDY OF OBITUARIES, ADDRESSING CRITICALLY WHAT IS SOMETIMES IDENTIFIED AS THE CONTEMPORARY GOLDEN AGE OF THE OBITUARY (SEE FOWLER, THE OBITUARY AS COLLECTIVE MEMORY, ROUTLEDGE, 2007).

Hannah Arendt once wrote a book about memorable thinkers in the interwar period, when fifteen European governments were fascist: she called it Men In Dark Times. I think that we are approaching similar dark times now. We are moving to an unprecedented period since World War II, in which the very possibility of critical thought is increasingly under threat. This is one implication of the Browne reports recommended removal of 100% of the teaching grant in arts and social sciences to the English Universities. Browne uses the progressive vocabulary of the Greens--Securing a Sustainable Future for Higher Education--to dress up in dynamic clothes its highly retrogressive policies, curiously denuded of evidence-based backing.1 He claims for example, that his changes are being pushed by universities failure to improve the students experience--but then shows that student satisfaction is in fact going up from 80% to 82%.2 He also claims that postgraduate education is successful and needs no changes to it: yet academics are all too aware that in the arts and social sciences there are neither scholarships nor loans for the vast majority of Masters courses, and thus progression to a PhD scholarship for the bright, poor student is blocked.3 Under the Browne recommendations, subjects in the humanities will have to depend on student fees. But how many students will pay 9000 to study subjects like Painting, Philosophy, Media Studies, English Literature, Art History, or Sociology? Many of these departments will shrink and close. As a consequence, there will be fewer academic positions where unorthodox thought is possible. Whatever Scotland and Wales do, they will be profoundly affected by this change in England. Raymond Williams pointed out in 1961 that British higher education was caught between the transmission of a mandarin minority
ISSN 2078-3884

edu-factory web journal

issue 1 - september 2011

58

culture and Industrial Training.4 But the Browne Report is not just about increased Industrial Training as we have experienced it before. The Browne Report is about changing the structure of the University to fit a neoliberal or finance capitalist economy. Following Eagletons early work, where he distinguishes between the general mode of production and the literary mode of production, it could be argued that this represents a transformation in the academic mode of production.5 It is aimed at reducing the present relative autonomy of the universities and replacing this with much closer links between the neoliberal university and what employers need.6 This does not necessarily involve the privatisation of significant numbers of universities - although Browne himself suggests that this is indeed likely.7 It involves much closer links with companies, as indeed has been the pattern in engineering departments (BAE Systems etc) since the Second World War. The consequences are likely to be a massive shift away from the public university, with its commitment to undergraduate teaching for all academic staff and obligations via extramural education to the local region. The structure of the university modeled on the Robbins Report is on the brink of being swept away, not least Lord Robbins commitment to a humanist education. Robbins envisaged a university in which the teaching of transposable and practical skills for employment was necessary, but in which other aims were just as important: the education not of restricted specialists but cultivated men and women, the concern with not merely good producers but good men and women, the search for truth and the advancement of learning, and the provision of a common culture and--not least--common standards of citizenship to offset the inequalities of home backgrounds.8 What would the post-Browne English university look like? Browne has given us certain clues, but the impending changes undoubtedly relate to a global phenomenon. The US has already advanced down this path to a much greater degree than Britain. Amongst the plethora of reports on this new academic regime, Slaughter and Rhoades present the most detailed and scholarly survey.9 Academic capitalism, they argue, is characterised by four main features: (1) intensified commitment to research over teaching, and to the commodification of the knowledge produced. Thus prior to 1980 about 250 patents per annum went to universities; in 1998 there were 3,151.10 Universities are extensively restructured to support excellence. In particular, investment is strongest in those areas where the greatest amounts of corporate money is available, as well as public funding in the form of research grants. Business companies have now even begun to shape the research agenda, including-- surprisingly--reviewing grant proposals.11 (2) A new commodification of teaching at the level of individual universities, through sales of their academics lectures, as well as the more familiar textbooks. (3) An extended dual labour market for academic staff. A primary market caters for research stars, such as highly-paid professors, in well-founded laboratories and institutes; the secondary market is the resort of part-time workers who teach without even offices--a newly-swollen academic contingent labour-force, one sector of the wider precariat. Part-time teaching has doubled in the last 20 years.12 Finally, (4) a decline of interest in local communities and especially ethnic minorities, a characteristic of the older public university regime: As colleges and universities shift towards revenue generation through academic capitalism, they invest less in historic, democratic missions of providing increased access and upward social mobility to less advantaged populations of students.13

ISSN 2078-3884

bridget fowler

the threat to academic autonomy

59

Appearances to the contrary, this changed mode of academic production in the States has not in fact led to a reduction of public subsidy but rather to its transfer. Further, although claimed to benefit the society in general, the neoliberal university is correlated with increased inequalities-with especial benefits for large corporations, the wealthy (not least vice-chancellors) and the upper-middle class. The transformations listed above are an intensification of the trends already noted in British universities, in which S/HEFC money was allocated to universities in proportion to their RAE/ REF results. This has already contributed, alongside other factors, to an increased marketisation of universities: a game in which the winner takes all, as Martins coruscating survey reveals.14 Browne advertises, unashamedly, that his recommendations would lead to an increased competition between and within universities - a survival of the [reputably] fittest--in which department is pitted against department. The 1885 Scottish Universities Act guaranteed security of tenure to academic staff. Only moral turpitude was a reasonable ground for dismissal. Throughout Britain, academic staff were recognised--in the wake of Darwin--to be potentially the authors of heterodox works who needed protection against dismissal from more orthodox heads of departments. Yet this principle is widely endangered at present. Indeed, one such home of heterodoxy, the internationally renowned Centre for European Philosophy at Middlesex University, has already been closed, despite an RAE rating that ranked it higher than Warwick, Sussex and many other universities. In other words a new game with market logic at its centre is being substituted for an academic game. As I write, anthropologists, adult educators, archaeologists and Russian and Czech linguists are under threat of forced redundancy at Glasgow University: in a few months there will doubtless be swathes of sociology, philosophy and history of art departments closing down throughout Britain. Along with them, the future in Britain of critical thought - indeed academic thought itself in many areas--is jeopardised. Charles Dickens Hard Times (1854) has a witty indictment of a narrowly utilitarian education restricted to practical facts alone (You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts says his satirised schoolteacher, Thomas Gradgrind (n.d.:11). We need a Hard Times for our time. Indeed, teaching of the main canonised works of sociology and the arts is being threatened with being swept aside, to be replaced by Brownes high priority courses--the natural sciences, professional vocational training and applied studies.15 I want to begin, however, by making a point about David Camerons big society. Edward Thompson, the historian, once reviewed Raymond Williams book The Long Revolution, which had a chapter on the literature of the 1840s. I have spent a good deal of time in the 1840s he said, and his 1840s are not mine. Williams sees working-class culture as a whole way of life-Thompson sums it up rather differently, as also a whole way of conflict.16 This is a memorable difference of emphasis, although I suspect that Williams would not have been averse to Thompsons formulation. It is worth recalling this reservation when we speak today about official discourses and the hegemonic power of the dominant class. For subaltern classes retain vigorously their own common sense in which conflict is a vital part of their armoury.17 Taking Thompsons critique forward, I would argue, similarly to him: I have spent a lot of

ISSN 2078-3884

edu-factory web journal

issue 1 - september 2011

60

time with the idea of a big society and my big society is not David Camerons idea. Granted, Cameron spoke at Davos of social fragmentation. But his simplistic remedy for this seems to be more philanthropy and the further multiplication of voluntary associations. He has little to say about whether the neoliberal agenda he has championed might actually be provoking the fragmentation and loss of trust to which he refers. Neoliberal structures, with their unregulated markets and short-termist banking priorities do intensify fragmentation by weakening collectivities, such as families, trade unions and universities, whilst simultaneously creating precarious jobs. To master the concept of the big society, it is essential to understand historically the nature of capitalist modernity. Let me sketch briefly the reasons why a rigorous, undiluted sociology might be one of the disciplines under attack. Its founding fathers --all dead by 1920--argued that a society that is based purely on the individualistic struggle of homo economicus for competitive advantage could not survive, or at best, could not command respect. Emile Durkheim (1858-1917)--the mildest of the sociological giants--was nevertheless a man who argued that beneath the complex modern division of labour and the law of contracts there had to be some moral base--a commitment to keep promises. Moreover that, in turn, was founded on both a collective consciousness and on regulation. Americans tend to skip over the fact that he wrote a book entitled--and advocating--Socialism. Yet for Durkheim, the revolts and crises of modern capitalism emerged where there was either a forced division of labour (1969: 374-388)--as a consequence of entire groups or classes being restricted to inferior positions18, or an anomic division of labour.19 Here workers failed to see how their individual productive work contributed to the whole and--lacking any understanding of their fellow-workers or consumers--felt diminished by the monotonous regularity of their labour and reduced to purely private activities.20 . Max Weber (1864-1920)--as is well known--referred to the Puritans, and especially the Protestant Ethic, as having gently rocked the cradle when the frail new infant, rational capitalism, was born, in the 17th Century. However, now (1905), he argued - despite the achievements of a formal rationality--capitalism and bureaucracy has forged only an iron cage. He concludes his Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism with a rare value-judgement: Since asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power over the lives of men as at no previous period in history [... ] For of the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart; this nullity imagines that it has attained a level of civilization never before achieved.21 But we shouldnt forget Marx (1818-83), surely the most misunderstood of the three celebrated founders of sociology. Now behind all Marxs historical analyses was an idea of a big society--or the good society--but it was, of course, one without alienation and without the detail division of labour--the degradation of labour. His benchmark for the good society was one in which humans lived and worked in accordance with their distinctively human capacities. And yet everything that the neoliberals are doing is dedicated to reconstituting mass unemployment-Marxs reserve army of labour-- the lever propelling men and women into degraded work, with the maximum productivity.22 In these social relations, as Marx said, people can only feel themselves to be truly human in their leisure time. Somewhat surprisingly, Max Weber agreed with Marx about the long-term trend of capitalism. He noted that the greater the power of the man-

ISSN 2078-3884

bridget fowler

the threat to academic autonomy

61

agement, the greater the loss of autonomy of workers [...] In this nullity of a civilisation he saw only religious brotherliness, art and love as providing resources to combat the narrow calculative rationality of economic life. As Charles Turner has recently pointed out, contemporary physicists have canonical works, such as Newtons Principia Mathematica, yet they dont need to read them! Sociologists, in contrast, gain a better understanding of how they can develop their own, contemporary theory if they read the works of the canonised founders.23 In particular, a critical stance in relation to the basic paradigms of economics, first formulated in the classical canon, is still an important aspect of current social theory. One strand of argument that has gone through the works of both Marx and Weber is the claim that different social positions engender different perspectives. Indeed we might straightaway apply this to the present House of Commons with their high levels of expensive school education. The Telegraph reported in January that there are 20 Old Etonians in the Commons, eight of them in the Government. Of the 119 ministers in the Coalition, two thirds were privately educated.24 Indeed, within Camerons and Cleggs expectations of educational expenditure the universities mere 9000 fees p.a. would appear as a reduced outlay (Eton (2009-10) charges 28, 851)! However well-meaning their intentions, their distinctive social location, with its own perspective, will prevent them from properly grasping this change. They act in relation to an lite historical unconscious of which they are largely unaware. It is the role of sociology and anthropology to supply an understanding of these forgotten elements. We might say, the discipline of sociology provides an invaluable socioanalysis.

CULTURE, EDUCATION AND LEGITIMATION

In the 1960s, the canonised high cultural works were still seen as the divinely-inspired creations of solitary geniuses, providing a spiritual supplement to mundane existence. I want to turn now to the critical work on the role of the cultural canon by writers like Terry Eagleton and Pierre Bourdieu. I shall argue that this set of symbolic values is now under attack and that while criticising the form that consecration has taken, teaching the canon itself is still fundamental in todays universities. Eagleton took up Althussers idea of education as an ideological state apparatus, in which education is the equivalent today of what religion had once been. Eagleton initially applied this to the social role of the literary canon: Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Jane Austen, George Eliot etc. In Literary Theory (1983) he writes ironically, punning blithely to create an analogy between the literary canon and the military cannon. The teaching of Literature is linked to the repressive job of keeping social order: If the masses are not thrown a few novels, they may react by throwing up a few barricades.25 If you go so far as to reject the canon of accepted, consecrated authors, he remarks, you are lost [] The canon is trundled out to blast offenders out of the literary arena.26 At the very end of the book, Eagleton does assert that the texts now regarded as literature might be returned to their context and then recycled, put to different uses--political uses.27 But he never elaborates on this point, so this brilliant book invites the conclusion that literatures role in the social order has become purely that of social control. Literature is given to the brightest working-class

ISSN 2078-3884

edu-factory web journal

issue 1 - september 2011

62

to teach them the civilised conduct that would turn them away from revolutionary social change. Eagletons Literary Theory has no analysis of how tutors or students negotiate with the ideas that they are taught so as to cast them within their own frame of reference or experience. The main theme of Literary Theory is also very remote from the conclusions Jonathan Rose has formed about the literary canon in his The Intellectual Life of the British Working-Classes (2002). Here he draws on autobiographies of self-taught readers (19th and 20th Centuries) to reveal their practices with literature. Rose remarks that although these working-class readers had read a great variety of books, not everything that they read in their promiscuous mix of high and low was meaningful.28 He sums up: Only canonical literature could produce epiphanies in common readers, and, specifically, only great books could inspire them to write.29 Moreover, the social reality of teaching adult learners the cultural canon has always been much more complex than Eagleton suggests. Tom Steeles studies of teaching literature to the mature working-class students in the Workers Education Authority (WEA) and other extramural classes show that we cannot see the literary canon as simply ideological, part of the armoury of soft social incorporation.30 Instead, the students appropriated these literary texts by actively interrogating them through the ethics and worldview they themselves brought to extramural classes: nonconformity, a certain working-class puritanism, trade union collectivism, and Romanticism. I want now to turn to an idea linked to that of Eagletons thesis--of the cultural game as the peculiar fetishism or spiritualism of our time, as Pierre Bourdieu puts it. Bourdieu makes several points in Distinction (1978) about canonised culture, which he calls consecrated culture: (1) First, he shows empirically that different classes have different cultures and tastes: different ways of eating and preferred foods, different responses to Bach, abstract expressionism and pop music. These derive from their divergent habitus in the field of power--the habitus being marked by their varying levels of education, of course, but also by their familys specific experience of material conditions. (2) Second, that there is a front-stage and a back-stage to the sphere of culture. Front-stage, there is an expressed democratic concern with improved access so that high culture might be for everyone; back-stage--where it really counts--the mastery of consecrated culture (high culture) is viewed as a rare distinction. The aristocracy of culture, he remarks, ignore the social conditions, which make possible a pleasure in canonised culture, treating a feel for colour or artistic talents as though they were natural: In short by making a fact of nature everything which defines their worth [....] their distinction - the privileged classes of bourgeois society replace the difference between two cultures, products of history reproduced by education, with the basic difference between two natures, one nature naturally cultivated, and the other nature naturally natural. Thus the sanctification of culture and art, this currency of the absolute which is worshipped by a society enslaved to the absolute of currency, fulfils a vital function by contributing to the consecration of the social order.31 (3) Moreover, this love of art or secular culture has now become the spiritual soul of the bourgeoisie, and thus their claim to social acceptance. It legitimates them. Distinction was a radical disenchantment of the world and of the uses to which culture is put.

ISSN 2078-3884

bridget fowler

the threat to academic autonomy

63

It emphasises that even modernism--that art of dissidents--had become a badge of honour for the dominant class, whilst its role tended to intimidate workers representatives, since it underlined their ignorance. Bourdieu says in an interview that this book cost him emotionally a great deal. Later, in his 1996 classic, The Rules of Art, Pierre Bourdieu reveals the social conditions which have freed modernist cultural producers for the long experimental period that powerful works of art require--amongst them, high levels of formal education and sufficient money. But here he makes it absolutely clear that this exposure of the underlying social conditions for entry into the restricted field of modern art is not intended to deny the value of the canonised cultural works. On the contrary: he suggests that a sociological understanding of the collective determinisms underlying the area of cultural creation can only but be illuminating, because it breaks with the idea of the poet/ writers as having divine gifts. It reveals the cooperative artworld or artistic field behind these works. It reminds us--lest we forget--how the first modernists in the 1850s had to struggle against being jailed and censored to conquer a sphere of literary autonomy and long-term literary values. Within this restricted field, literature did not have to be judged in terms of its market sales, nor did it have to pass State or religious loyalty tests. Far from wanting to reduce authorship to insignificance, he now writes, with Mallarm, about the fragile fetish of the literary device.32 Bourdieu wrote an impassioned PS to this book, The Rules of Art. Here he suggests that certain fundamental changes are happening in 1990s Europe. These changes are once again challenging and eroding that autonomous space where people can be critical. They can be summoned up as the increasing interpenetration of the world of art and the world of money: The media: is a key here because cultural producers are lured in, as celebrities, but are then ruled by the logic of the media. This makes them succumb to the fast writing and fast reading that underpin the occupational requirements of journalists. The publishing industry: Bourdieu referred especially to the erosion of the well-established boundary between books in the artistic field--which therefore did not have to make a profit in the short run--and the general run of books that do have to be published on this basis: the boundary has never been so blurred between the experimental work and the best-seller.33 (Numerous other studies, eg. Andr Schiffrins The Business of Books (1990), come to the same conclusion.) Sponsorship has increased: this provokes self-censorship, often incompatible with being really autonomous.

Bourdieu called for a Realpolitik of Reason or an Estates General of Artists and Intellectuals. His later polemic, Acts of Resistance (1998) demystifies the bankers ideology--neoliberalism--as a new technocratic paternalism which knows what will make the people happy.34 Bourdieu died in 2002 but he would have regarded the threats to British arts and humanities departments as part of this same economic fatalist ideology. Finally, what of the academics who are threatened by unemployment? Some might comfort themselves that they would have fewer bureaucratic rituals and more time for uninterrupted thinking. However, the lived experience of those bereft of academia has historically been harsh. I will end with a highly unsystematic sample of three such individuals:

ISSN 2078-3884

edu-factory web journal

issue 1 - september 2011

64

(1) Gi Baldamus, a German married to a Jew, was forced out of academia in Germany in the 1930s. He did, at last, get another academic job in WWII, eventually becoming a Professor of Sociology at Birmingham University. But he had to spend several years working on the assembly-line in a factory first. (2) CLR James, the Afro-Caribbean writer who wrote, amongst other things, the extraordinary The Black Jacobins, never got an academic job. He was sponsored in Britain by friends from home, like the cricketer and politician Learie Constantine. After periods witnessing decolonisation in Trinidad, he ended up lived in Brixton, where Race Today, the collective, had to pay the rent for his flat. Poor throughout his life and over-reliant on his friends, in political meetings he was often taken for a tramp.35 (3) Finally, many Jewish holders of a doctorate in interwar Germany could not get jobs. Walter Benjamin, now so admired as the Marxist who best understood metropolitan, consumer society, was one such, exiled to Paris. His parents, well into his 40s, had to send him an allowance so that he could go on reading in the Bibliothque Nationale. When Hitler came to power, this stopped. Benjamin was dependent on tiny intermittent payments for writing, such as the fee for his Radio Biographies of Famous Germans. It was perhaps these years of worry about material survival which led him to take so quickly the decision to commit suicide when the Gestapo visited the guesthouse where he was sleeping as he tried to cross the French- Spanish border in 1940 to get away from the Nazis.

CONCLUSION
These few examples reveal graphically the huge stakes in our fighting to retain the university as a centre for the critical intellect. Despite the capacity of the powerful to recuperate the cultural canon for their own status purposes, the independence of the canonised tradition in the Republic of Letters has to be preserved at all costs. Critical education within universities allows intellectuals to support such a Republic of Letters as well as to engage in heterodox studies of social reality, studies unpalatable to established lites.

NOTES
1 2 3

Browne, Securing, 49. Browne, Securing, 25.

To gain a Distinction at Masters level, which is the de facto precondition of eligi-

bility for a PhD scholarship it is essential for paid work to be restricted to part-time only. Yet many academically-outstanding students--especially working-class in origin--are forced to finance their Masters with fulltime jobs.

ISSN 2078-3884

bridget fowler

the threat to academic autonomy

65

4 5 6 7 8

Williams, The Common, 226-9. Eagleton, Criticism, 44. Browne, Securing, 31. Browne, Securing, 49.

384. My italics.
19 20

Durkheim, The Division, 353-73.

Robbins, Report, 6-8. Bourdieus and Passerons Reproduction and The Inheritors critiqued this older mode of academic education; nor would we want to deny that many of its attributes went hand-in-hand in practice with the social reproduction of class inequalities. But the new threat is of a different order, as I shall show.
9

A further, abnormal type of the division of labour was the malintegrated form where specialised labour is poorly-coordinated; this leads workers to incoherence in the performance of their functions, that is, to irregular performance or even the total ceasing of work, due to inadequacy or poor timing of supplies. Durkheim, The Division, 389-395.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Weber, The Protestant, 181-2. Marx, Capital. Turner, Investigating. Daily Telegraph, February 23, 2011. Eagleton, Literary, 25. Eagleton, Literary, 214. Eagleton, Literary, 213. Rose, The Intellectual, 371. Rose, The Intellectual, 371. Steele, The Emergence. Bourdieu, The Love, 111. My emphasis. Bourdieu, The Rules, 276-7. Bourdieu, The Rules, 347. Bourdieu, Acts, 31.

Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic. Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic, 312. Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic, 311. Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic, 320. Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic, 308. Martins, The Marketisation, 18. Browne, Securing, ch. 6. Thompson, The Long, 28, 33. Thomas, The Gramscian.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Here external social inequalities meant that the contracting parties were in very different situations, thus destroying any solidarity between them: All superiority has its effect on the manner in which contracts are made. If, then, it does not derive from the persons [merits] of the individuals [...] it falsifies the moral conditions of exchange. In other words, there cannot be rich and poor at birth without there being unjust contracts. Durkheim, The Division,

I am grateful to Andrew Smith for this information. See his C.L.R. James and the Study of Culture, Basingstoke: Palgrave

ISSN 2078-3884

edu-factory web journal

issue 1 - september 2011

66

MacMillan. REFERENCES Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction. London: RKP. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Love of Art. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Acts of Resistance. Cambridge : Polity. Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, JeanClaude. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Bourdieu, Pierre and Passeron, JeanClaude. 1979. The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to Culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Browne, John. 2010. Securing A Sustainable Future for Higher Education. URL: http://www. bis.gov.uk/assets/ biscore/corporate/docs/s/10-1208 securing-sustainable-higher-educa [May 17, 2011]. Dickens, Charles. 1906 [1854]. Hard Times. London: Chapman and Hall. Durkheim, Emile. 1958. Socialism and Saint Simon. Ohio: Antioch Press. Durkheim, Emile. 1969 [1893]. The Division of Labour in Society. Glencoe Free Press, Collier MacMillan: Chicago, Illinois. Eagleton, Terry. 1976. Criticism and Ideology. London: New Left Books.

Eagleton, Terry. 1983. Literary Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Martins, Herminio. 2004. The Marketisation of Universities, Metacritica, Revista de filosofia, no 4. 1-73 (In English) (URL:http;//www.metacritica.ulosofona.pt [July 19, 2011]) Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital: Vol 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Robbins Report. 1963. Higher Education. URL: http://www.educationengland. org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins02. html [May 18, 2011]. Rose, Jonathan. 2002. The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes. Newhaven: Yale. Smith, Andrew. 2010. C.L.R. James and the Study of Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. 2004. Academic Capitalism in the New Economy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Steele, Tom. 1997. The Emergence of Cultural Studies, 1945-65: Cultural Politics, Adult Education and the English Question. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Thomas, Peter D. 2010. The Gramscian Moment: Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism. Chicago, Illinois: Haymarket. Thompson, Edward, P. 1961. The Long Revolution. New Left Review, Part I, 9: 24-33; Part II, 10: 34-39. Turner, Charles. 2010. Investigating Social Theory. London: Sage.

ISSN 2078-3884

bridget fowler

the threat to academic autonomy

67

Weber, Max. 1962 [1904-5]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin. Williams, Raymond. 1993. The common good. In Border Country: Raymond Williams in Adult Education, ed. J. McIlroy and S Westwood, 226-232. Leicester: NIACE.

ISSN 2078-3884